No Chick-fil-A

[bjs]

"Popular fast food chain Chick-fil-A has reportedly been barred from opening a new location in the San Antonio, Texas, airport.

The San Antonio City Council on Thursday voted 6-4 to pass a new concessions agreement that excludes Chick-fil-A, citing the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history."

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... anti-lbgtq

Personally, I am horrified by this. If you don't like what a restaurant chain does then don't eat there. When a government official uses his power to prevent a restaurant from opening then that goes of against fundamental American values of neutrality and the separation of church and state.

For debate: Is banning Chick-fil-A because of the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history and acceptable practice?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

RightReason wrote:


It is your opinion that where they donated is anti-LBGT. As a Christian myself, we teach and believe love for all of God’s children.

Then you should be on my side calling out Chick-Fil-A on their behavior.

Again, you have established no ill behavior from CFA. You simply don’t agree with their religious/political views. Boo hoo. Again, they are free to spend their money how they like

And just because you don’t like the group they donated to does not mean that group is bad or doesn’t have the right to exist. I’m afraid that is your opinion.

And here’s what Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil ... ontroversy has to say . . . Bolded parts mine.


This followed reports that Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, the S. Truett Cathy-operated WinShape Foundation, had donated millions of dollars to political organizations seen by LGBT activists as hostile to LGBT rights.


So, again no proof this group was guilty of LBGT discrimination just that it was seen by LGBT activists as so.


And from Wikipedia again here’s what else was said . . .


According to the TCRA, Chick-fil-A officials stated in an internal document that they "will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation."[25]


The company continues to focus on the fair treatment of all of its customers and employees


The company created a new foundation, the Chick-fil-A Foundation, to fund outside groups. WinShape Foundation's 2012 tax filings showed funding only for its own programs, a Berry College scholarship fund, and Lars WinShape, a home for needy children in Brazil.[2]


In 2017, Chick-fil-A is warning all its franchisees against speaking out publicly or getting involved in anything that could blur the line between their private beliefs and their public roles as extensions of the Chick-fil-A brand, the company has said.

Last year[when?], that message extended to politics, in part to keep the brand from being exploited by candidates. The company turned down several candidates who tried to use Chick-fil-A to bolster their campaigns, according to David Farmer, Chick-fil-A's vice president of menu strategy and development.

"There are several candidates who would like to use us as a platform," Farmer told Business Insider last year. "We are not engaging. Chick-fil-A is about food, and that's it."

The proposed bans in Boston and Chicago drew criticism from some liberal pundits, legal experts, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Kevin Drum of Mother Jones magazine said "[T]here's really no excuse for Emanuel's and Menino's actions... you don't hand out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political views of the executives. Not in America, anyway .


UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh observed, "[D]enying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation."[40]

Echoing those views were Glenn Greenwald of Salon, professor John Turley of The George Washington University Law School, Adam Schwartz, a senior attorney with the ACLU, and Michael C. Dorf, the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School.[41][42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil ... ontroversy

We are talking about the so called gay conversion therapy here, i.e. torturing the gay out of someone.

If a person is experiencing same sex attraction and doesn’t want to have those feelings, he has every right to seek the therapy of his choice. The person may believe those feelings are wrong and would only lead to his unhealthy and unhappy future. It’s funny that you would think such therapy is “torturing the gay out� whereas to many who suffer from same sex attraction they would describe their feelings and gay lifestyle they sought due to those feelings torture. They might share their years of promiscuity, loneliness, substance abuse, depression, etc. They might see the freedom from such thoughts and behavior as peace and joy. So, just because you think or want them to believe they have no choice or control over their feelings/behavior doesn’t make it so. I suggest you let the individual make that decision.

Quote:
It means they have an agenda. It would be like the NRA putting out a list of company’s or organizations that they felt displayed proper attitude and behavior regarding the 2nd Amendment.

And that would be problematic because...? Are you implying that the NRA's score of a company's attitude and behavior regarding the 2nd Amendment, would then somehow be untrustworthy?

Yes, that is exactly what I am implying. An LGBT group is much more likely to be hostile to religious groups who believe homosexual acts are immoral. The LGBT group would likely lable them as anti-LBGT, even if the group did nothing that is actually anti-LGBT. Please tell me you aren’t so naïve to understand how bias works.

No discrimination against LGBT has occurred.

Again, see their donations.

You have not established even the group they donated to discriminates – even Wikipedia had to continually declare, “according to LGBT activitists� so you have no argument even in your guilt by association attempt.

Holding the belief that same sex relations are immoral is not discriminatory. I also hold the belief that sex outside of marriage is immoral. And I have the right to hold that position. Just having that view is not discriminatory. How do you not get that?

Loaded question cannot be answered. Again you are reduce the harm they are doing to a mere disagreement. Quit it. It's not about what they believe, it's about what they are doing.

You have established no harm they are doing. There isn’t harm just because you say something is harmful.

see my list of examples: gay conversion therapy

If someone wants to seek therapy or counseling they should be free to do so.

discrimination against transgender individuals from their services

Please be specific. What discrimination against transgender has occurred?

limiting gay people from leadership positions

Examples please.

and lobbying for "religious freedom" legislations.

I would consider lobbying for religious freedom legislation a worthy cause and beautiful example of exercising our first amendment rights.

These are not mere disagreement on beliefs, these are tangible actions with real life negative effect on people.

According to you. Again, you are thinking just because they hold different views/beliefs than you, that their beliefs/views cause harm. That is your opinion. According to Wikipedia:


In August 2012, Rasmussen Reports published the results of a telephone survey indicating that 61 percent of likely voters held a favorable view of Chick-fil-A

you might well be discriminating though, it depends on the specifics, on what the organisers of this chastity awareness program actually do. Does it for example lobby for legislations that allow employers to sack those with an extramarital sex life? Do you still donate to said organisation knowing that's what your money will be used for?

Please provide the evidence this group you are referring to advocates for firing someone because he is gay.

Quote:
What group did they give money to that refused to serve or hire homosexuals?

Fellowship of Christian Athletes for example, it requires its employees to refrain from gay sex.

Wikipedia says although the group has been criticized for including a sexual purity statement the application does not require signing the sexual purity statement. Sounds like freedom to me.

Quote:
Oh, I am hardly reducing your comments to a mere disagreement. I am highlighting the hypocrisy and danger of your comments. You are discriminating against someone just because they don’t agree with you.

But I am not though, I am discriminating against someone because they act in a way that harms the LGBT community. That's not a mere disagreement.

I might suggest waiving the rainbow flag harms the LGBT community. It allows them to not face the reality of many of the affects of living in a same sex relation. The LGBT community has increased rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, reported domestic violence.

Anal sex, which according to the CDC over 90% of men who have sex with men engage in is high risk sexual behavior. The CDC itself says this. The anus was not designed to have something inserted in it. The membranes of the anus are thin (nothing like the vagina). They are more likely to tear or rupture causing the increased likelihood of harboring bacteria and spreading disease. These are facts that put those in the LGBT community in harm. Is that the kind of harmful effect you are referring to?

As you can see, we can both want the same thing -- love/support/ and fairness to our LGBT community while having different ways of demonstrating that.

Quote:
You can dislike them, but you can’t prevent them from operating a business and you certainly cannot prevent them from exercising their freedom to think how they want and give money to who they want. It doesn’t work that way.

Sure, however I can (at least collectively) prevent them from opening a business in a certain location, like the students and San Antonio City Council mentioned in the articles here.

There was huge uproar that groups that are banning Chick-Fil-A are out of bounds and the ones that are actually guilty of discrimination.

*****************

The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority could open itself up to lawsuits if it directly bars a Chick-fil-A from opening at Buffalo Niagara International Airport, according to the American Civil Liberties Union and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

"Government actors cannot officially silence speech or take punitive actions based on a person’s or private entity’s political viewpoints," said Erika Lorshbough, the assistant director of the New York branch of the ACLU, in a statement. "The First Amendment does not permit the NFTA to base its contracting decisions on the political views of a vendor.

"The only manifest evidence of discrimination in this matter is by the NFTA," he wrote


https://buffalonews.com/2019/04/04/nfta ... officials/

But it's not about ideas, its about their actions.

Except you have failed to show any actions of CFA or the group they donate to as harmful/bad to the LBGT Community.

No. I am attempting to force others to treat LGBT community with the same basic respect that everyone deserves.

One can believe same sex unions immoral and not be guilty of discrimination, but you continue to falsely equate the two.

[Bust Nak]

gain, you have established no ill behavior from CFA.

I don't know how you can maintain this given this would be the third time I mention their donation to anti-LGBT groups.

You simply don’t agree with their religious/political views. Boo hoo. Again, they are free to spend their money how they like.

That they are, but if you acknowledge that my grievance is with them spending "their money how they like," why aren't you registering that it is about their action and not a mere religious/political views? Spending cash is not an action?

And just because you don’t like the group they donated to does not mean that group is bad or doesn’t have the right to exist. I’m afraid that is your opinion.

That's another topic on the nature of morality. Suffice to say what you said here is true if and only if morality is objective.

And here’s what Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil ... ontroversy has to say . . . Bolded parts mine.

This followed reports that Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, the S. Truett Cathy-operated WinShape Foundation, had donated millions of dollars to political organizations seen by LGBT activists as hostile to LGBT rights.

So, again no proof this group was guilty of LBGT discrimination just that it was seen by LGBT activists as so.

Again, I point to my examples: gay conversion therapy, discrimination against transgender individuals from their services, limiting gay people from leadership positions and lobbying for "religious freedom" legislations. There are reasons why they are seen that way.

According to the TCRA, Chick-fil-A officials stated in an internal document that they "will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation."

Their actions says otherwise. They are still giving donations to said anti-LGBT organisation in 2017, 5 years after that quote.

If a person is experiencing same sex attraction and doesn’t want to have those feelings, he has every right to seek the therapy of his choice.

Right, but we have a moral duty to prevent people from performing unethical and ineffective "therapy."

The person may believe those feelings are wrong and would only lead to his unhealthy and unhappy future. It’s funny that you would think such therapy is “torturing the gay out� whereas to many who suffer from same sex attraction they would describe their feelings and gay lifestyle they sought due to those feelings torture. They might share their years of promiscuity, loneliness, substance abuse, depression, etc. They might see the freedom from such thoughts and behavior as peace and joy.

There were actual therapy comes in, to allow them to come to terms with their sexuality.

So, just because you think or want them to believe they have no choice or control over their feelings/behavior doesn’t make it so. I suggest you let the individual make that decision.

I don't know why you think, I believe or want them to believe they have no choice or control over their feelings/behavior. How are you jumping to that conclusion based on my claim that gay conversion is harmful? You seem very quick to jump to conclusion on what or how I think, despite my post saying otherwise. Why?

Yes, that is exactly what I am implying. An LGBT group is much more likely to be hostile to religious groups who believe homosexual acts are immoral.

Just as NRA will be hostile to groups who wants to ban guns. They are not going to give a company a zero and then be hostile to them based on that zero score. Instead they are going to see how gun friendly they are, and then be hostile to them if they don't like what they are seeing and give them a zero.

The LGBT group would likely lable them as anti-LBGT, even if the group did nothing that is actually anti-LGBT. Please tell me you aren’t so naïve to understand how bias works.

That made no sense what so ever. That's not how bias works at all. What you seem to be missing is that the hostility and bias is the result of them said group being homophobic. Just as NRA are naturally hostile and bias against groups that wants to ban guns. You have the cause and effect backwards.

Tell me, which makes more sense to you:

Scenario 1:
NRA hates and is bias against anti-gun groups.
Company A is not anti-gun.
NRA has a bias against company A for no reason, then the NRA to give A zero on gun friendliness based on said unexplained bias, just to mess with the company.

Scenario 2:
NRA hates and is bias against anti-gun groups.
Company B is anti-gun.
NRA has give them to give B zero score on gun friendliness, NRA hates and is bias against B due to B's anti-gun stance.

You have not established even the group they donated to discriminates – even Wikipedia had to continually declare, “according to LGBT activitists� so you have no argument even in your guilt by association attempt.

Again, I don't know how you can maintain this given the examples I gave.

You have established no harm they are doing. There isn’t harm just because you say something is harmful.

Woah there, gay conversion therapy is harmful just because I say it's harmful? Refusing services is harmful just because I say it's harmful? Firing someone for being gay is harmful just because I say it's harmful?

It's one thing to deny that such things are happening. You have quite the nerve to suggest these are not harmful.

If someone wants to seek therapy or counseling they should be free to do so.

Right, what does that have to do with the fact that gay conversation is anti-LGBT?

Please be specific. What discrimination against transgender has occurred?

Specifically, https://thinkprogress.org/salvation-arm ... 0c79b4cd4/

limiting gay people from leadership positions

You are already aware of FCA's sexual purity statement. More on that later...

I would consider lobbying for religious freedom legislation a worthy cause and beautiful example of exercising our first amendment rights.

Lobbing in general is okay, but the specific legislations in question make it easier to sack/not hire LGBT community. Is that only harmful because I disagree with it?

According to you. Again, you are thinking just because they hold different views/beliefs than you, that their beliefs/views cause harm.

Right, because refusing services and employment causing harm is a mere matter of opinion?

In August 2012, Rasmussen Reports published the results of a telephone survey indicating that 61 percent of likely voters held a favorable view of Chick-fil-A

And that makes it okay to continue harming the LGBT community, how?

Please provide the evidence this group you are referring to advocates for firing someone because he is gay.

See example above. You've also not address my point - donating to a chastity awareness program may well be discriminatory, depending on the specifics. Are you willing to concede that much?

Wikipedia says although the group has been criticized for including a sexual purity statement the application does not require signing the sexual purity statement. Sounds like freedom to me.

It also says the statement "must be signed by FCA representatives of the ministry including staff, trustees and adult volunteer ministry leaders." There is also not a separate statement to sign, the statement of purity is part of application from itself.

I might suggest waiving the rainbow flag harms the LGBT community. It allows them to not face the reality of many of the affects of living in a same sex relation. The LGBT community has increased rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, reported domestic violence.

Anal sex, which according to the CDC over 90% of men who have sex with men engage in is high risk sexual behavior. The CDC itself says this. The anus was not designed to have something inserted in it. The membranes of the anus are thin (nothing like the vagina). They are more likely to tear or rupture causing the increased likelihood of harboring bacteria and spreading disease. These are facts that put those in the LGBT community in harm. Is that the kind of harmful effect you are referring to?

No, of course not. The harm you mention, they can decide for themselves if it's worth the risk. Someone mentioned freedom didn't they? Now contrast that with harm that encroach upon the freedom of people.

There was huge uproar that groups that are banning Chick-Fil-A are out of bounds and the ones that are actually guilty of discrimination.

Let them yell. They are on the losing end of history.

"Government actors cannot officially silence speech or take punitive actions based on a person’s or private entity’s political viewpoints," said Erika Lorshbough, the assistant director of the New York branch of the ACLU, in a statement. "The First Amendment does not permit the NFTA to base its contracting decisions on the political views of a vendor.

Good thing it's not based on the "the political views of a vendor" then.

Except you have failed to show any actions of CFA or the group they donate to as harmful/bad to the LBGT Community.

Except I haven't.

One can believe same sex unions immoral and not be guilty of discrimination, but you continue to falsely equate the two.

Wrong again. Do I need to bring my Obama counter-example for the third time? He was against same-sex union, but not guilty of discrimination. Perhaps it will stick this time.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

I don't know how you can maintain this given this would be the third time I mention their donation to anti-LGBT groups.

That’s like saying because I donate to Atheist Alliance International I am guilty of supporting anti-religious groups and that there is something criminal/wrong about that.

This is what you simply don’t get.

I’m not going to continue to rebut your argument point by point because you fail to understand the false premise your argument is based on.


I’ll only make a couple more comments on your desire to ban those who have same sex attraction from seeking the therapy of their choice:

Quote:
If a person is experiencing same sex attraction and doesn’t want to have those feelings, he has every right to seek the therapy of his choice.


Right, but we have a moral duty to prevent people from performing unethical and ineffective "therapy."

Are human beings not free to seek the therapy of their choice? If you don’t want to re direct your sexual desires, then don’t. But don’t tell others they are forbidden to do so. Once again it’s always the “tolerant� who are the most intolerant.

Quote:
The person may believe those feelings are wrong and would only lead to his unhealthy and unhappy future. It’s funny that you would think such therapy is “torturing the gay out� whereas to many who suffer from same sex attraction they would describe their feelings and gay lifestyle they sought due to those feelings torture. They might share their years of promiscuity, loneliness, substance abuse, depression, etc. They might see the freedom from such thoughts and behavior as peace and joy.

There were actual therapy comes in, to allow them to come to terms with their sexuality.

They have come to terms with their sexuality. They believe having same sex relations are immoral and will not bring them the happiness/fulfillment in life they desire and they would like to be able to control/change these unwanted sexual thoughts/behaviors in order to live the kinds of lives they want to live. You don’t get to tell someone he has to be gay.

I still find it a bit funny at how incapable you seem to be of recognizing the subjectivity of your own self righteous indignation and "moral outrage" which is causing you to engage in the very thing (discriminaiton) that you claim to be agianst. It's quite amusing.

[Bust Nak]

That’s like saying because I donate to Atheist Alliance International I am guilty of supporting anti-religious groups and that there is something criminal/wrong about that.

Sure, it is like that. If Atheist Alliance International is an organisation that is for example, lobbying to make it easier to sack people from their jobs based on their religion, or has a history of firing/not hiring people for their religion, or worse, running torture sessions on religious people to deconvert them. In which case, you would indeed be guilty of supporting an anti-religious group by funding them, and that there is indeed something criminal/wrong about that.

I’m not going to continue to rebut your argument point by point because you fail to understand the false premise your argument is based on.

Perhaps you could go into explain why on Earth you believe "funding hateful organisation is in itself hateful" is a false premise? I mean you could argue that the organisations in question are not hateful like you have been trying to do, but to deny the premise itself? That needs some explaining.

Are human beings not free to seek the therapy of their choice?

Sure, they are free to seek whatever they want. Provided it is actually for themselves and not say, like the case of David Stephan where he tried to treat his son's meningitis with pepper, horseradish and other natural remedies, resulting in the son's death.

If you don’t want to re direct your sexual desires, then don’t. But don’t tell others they are forbidden to do so.

But I am not telling anyone that it's forbidden to redirect their sexual desires though. Where are you getting that from? I asked you in my last post: How are you jumping to that conclusion based on my claim that gay conversion is harmful? No answers from you, yet you double down on your claim. Not a good look.

Once again it’s always the “tolerant� who are the most intolerant.

Right, because all it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

They have come to terms with their sexuality. They believe having same sex relations are immoral and will not bring them the happiness/fulfillment in life they desire and they would like to be able to control/change these unwanted sexual thoughts/behaviors in order to live the kinds of lives they want to live.

Oh? Then why do they still feel tortured, as you called it? That doesn't sound much like "coming to terms," now does it?

I still find it a bit funny at how incapable you seem to be of recognizing the subjectivity of your own self righteous indignation and "moral outrage" which is causing you to engage in the very thing (discriminaiton) that you claim to be agianst. It's quite amusing.

What I find amusing, is that this is the forth time I've explicity stated that I recognize that I am discriminatory, intolerant and proudly so. I even fed you the "feel the righteousness flowing" line in a prior post. Yet you still think you can get away with this false narrative of a lack of self awareness. Perhaps you could make a better attempt at listening to what I am saying?

[bjs]

gain, you have established no ill behavior from CFA.

I don't know how you can maintain this given this would be the third time I mention their donation to anti-LGBT groups.

This seems to be the crux of your argument, which brings me back to my original point. If you don’t like the group a restaurant or restaurant owner give money to, then don’t eat at that restaurant. Boycott it. When a government council decides that such donations are enough reason to ban a company from opening in a certain location, then that is something entirely different.

Imagine if you gave money to Atheist Alliance and then a city council banned you from opening a restaurant in your town because of that donation. Would that upset you? If so, why are you okay with Chick-Fil-A being treated in the same manner?

[Bust Nak]

When a government council decides that such donations are enough reason to ban a company from opening in a certain location, then that is something entirely different.

I accept that much. Public backlash is indeed an entirely different thing to government intervention.

Imagine if you gave money to Atheist Alliance and then a city council banned you from opening a restaurant in your town because of that donation. Would that upset you? If so, why are you okay with Chick-Fil-A being treated in the same manner?

Because the two are not comparable.

If Atheist Alliance is somehow guilty of the same/equivalent stuff as the groups Chick-Fil-A donates to, then you would have a point. In which case my answer would be: I would be okay with being denied from opening a restaurant, in the very same manner Chick-Fil-A is being treated.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

I refuse to accept your false premise that a group that supports marriage between a man and a woman and believes same sex relations are immoral is by de facto guilty of discrimination. If those businesses/groups have violated some law, then file charges.

Otherwise, things like voluntary purity pledges or helping those who want to be helped are not harmful discriminatory practices, even if your anti-purity pledge view thinks they are. And you don’t have to give a dime to those groups, but you don’t get to refuse to allow someone else who chooses to donate to those groups the right to operate a business that abides by every law that business owners must and have never been guilty of discrimination or mistreatment of anyone at any time, just because you find their beliefs/practices offensive.

It would be like saying I refuse to let John open a business in our town because I heard John is pro life and donates to a Pro life group that teaches the immorality of abortion. The group John donates to might even peaceably protest at abortion clinics hoping to change the hearts and minds of those contemplating abortion. And some of the women entering the clinic to have an abortion might say this made them feel sad or even angry, but that doesn’t mean the women having an abortion can claim the pro life group harmed them.

Other women might have been moved by the Pro life’s group presence and were grateful to them for helping them prevent what they would have considered an irreversible damaging decision.



“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.

If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.

I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.

To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.�

― Salman Rushdie

[Bust Nak]

I refuse to accept your false premise that a group that supports marriage between a man and a woman and believes same sex relations are immoral is by de facto guilty of discrimination.

That's not my premise, you have presented a straw man. I was quite explicit, my premise is: a group that for example, supports gay conversion therapy, discriminatory business practices, lobby for discriminatory legislations, is by de facto guilty of discrimination; and more relevantly knowingly funding of said group is by de facto guilty of discrimination. Surely a straw man is not the best you have to offer? Are you unable to distinguish actions with beliefs? Perhaps unable to separate them because said beliefs are held so strongly that actions such as firing people for their sexuality must follow?

Otherwise, things like voluntary purity pledges or helping those who want to be helped are not harmful discriminatory practices, even if your anti-purity pledge view thinks they are.

Right, which is why when you first brought it up, I asked if voluntary purity pledges involves any lobbying of "legislations that allow employers to sack those with an extramarital sex life" as an example, highlighting once again, that I was talking about actions and not beliefs.

Now that you brought this up again, it would be a good time to remind you that you have yet to address that point despite me prompting you for an answer for a second time. So here is the third opportunity for you to step up.

And you don’t have to give a dime to those groups, but you don’t get to refuse to allow someone else who chooses to donate to those groups the right to operate a business that abides by every law that business owners must and have never been guilty of discrimination or mistreatment of anyone at any time, just because you find their beliefs/practices offensive.

But I've already pointed out that we do get to do that, see the two actual instances where we have done exactly that. You are repeating refuted claims like nothing I said is sticking. How odd.

It would be like saying I refuse to let John open a business in our town because I heard John is pro life and donates to a Pro life group that teaches the immorality of abortion. The group John donates to might even peaceably protest at abortion clinics hoping to change the hearts and minds of those contemplating abortion. And some of the women entering the clinic to have an abortion might say this made them feel sad or even angry, but that doesn’t mean the women having an abortion can claim the pro life group harmed them.

Funny you should mention this, as this so called peaceful protest is meant as intimidation, and should rightly be called out for what they are, hate groups harassing women at their most vulnerable. While we are here, note that "peace protest" is still an action and not mere beliefs, even if I was to grant you that these protest are indeed peaceful.

Other women might have been moved by the Pro life’s group presence and were grateful to them for helping them prevent what they would have considered an irreversible damaging decision.

Okay, but that doesn't excuse their behavior.

“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read...�

― Salman Rushdie

Good quote, but quite irrelevant here, since we are after all, talking about actual harm here and not mere offence.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

RightReason wrote:


I refuse to accept your false premise that a group that supports marriage between a man and a woman and believes same sex relations are immoral is by de facto guilty of discrimination.

That's not my premise, you have presented a straw man.

I know you think and keep trying to insist it is not your premise, but I think I have adequately described your position. Others reading the thread can make up their own mind.

I was quite explicit, my premise is: a group that for example, supports gay conversion therapy, discriminatory business practices, lobby for discriminatory legislations, is by de facto guilty of discrimination; and more relevantly knowingly funding of said group is by de facto guilty of discrimination.

So, then I did get it right. Like I already stated if a person doesn’t want to alter/change the object of their sexual desires, they certainly are free not to do so. But there is nothing wrong with someone seeking the kind of therapy they choose. I would think that is a personal matter between the patient and the doctor. There are plenty of individuals who have benefited from controlling their same sex desires.

You haven’t demonstrated any discriminatory business practices. Purity pledges are voluntary and some would see as a beautiful thing.

As for lobbying for discriminatory legislations, I’ll bring you back to my pro life argument. Any pro life group would lobby for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and they would be perfectly in their right to do so. You might call that discrimination against women. Others would call the pro choice position discrimination against the unborn. Lobbying for political change is not wrong/bad or discriminatory just because you phrase it as such.

Quote:
It would be like saying I refuse to let John open a business in our town because I heard John is pro life and donates to a Pro life group that teaches the immorality of abortion. The group John donates to might even peaceably protest at abortion clinics hoping to change the hearts and minds of those contemplating abortion. And some of the women entering the clinic to have an abortion might say this made them feel sad or even angry, but that doesn’t mean the women having an abortion can claim the pro life group harmed them.

Funny you should mention this, as this so called peaceful protest is meant as intimidation, and should rightly be called out for what they are, hate groups harassing women at their most vulnerable.

Funny, that you seriously cannot see the other side. There is no intimidation or harassment involved in quietly standing outside of an abortion clinic praying the Rosary. And in fact, they are standing up for those who do not have a voice – the most vulnerable among us – the unborn.

People use to call those who peacefully protested against slavery hateful, but they stood up for those whose rights were being violated.

While we are here, note that "peace protest" is still an action and not mere beliefs, even if I was to grant you that these protest are indeed peaceful.

Sure. Actions that others are in their rights to do and cannot have their private businesses put out of business by merely exercising their first amendment rights of free speech. THAT is the true HARASSMENT and INTIMIDATION in this scenario. All because their protest bothers your sensitivity.

Quote:
Other women might have been moved by the Pro life’s group presence and were grateful to them for helping them prevent what they would have considered an irreversible damaging decision.

Okay, but that doesn't excuse their behavior.

They don’t need an excuse for their behavior. Their behavior is legal and well within their rights and cannot nor should not be taken away from them by threatening to refuse them the right to practice business since they are guilty of ABSOLUTELY NO WRONG DOING.

Quote:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read...�

― Salman Rushdie

Good quote, but quite irrelevant here, since we are after all, talking about actual harm here and not mere offence.

You keep telling yourself that.

[Bust Nak]

I know you think and keep trying to insist it is not your premise, but I think I have adequately described your position. Others reading the thread can make up their own mind.

Sounds like I need to bring up Obama again? Supported marriage between a man and a woman (not entirely sure if he went as far as to believe deviations from "union between a man and a woman" are immoral,) yet not guilty of discrimination. You've yet to acknowledge my counter-example, yet you double down on your straw man. I am sure readers would not be kind to your interpretation of my position.

So, then I did get it right. Like I already stated if a person doesn’t want to alter/change the object of their sexual desires, they certainly are free not to do so. But there is nothing wrong with someone seeking the kind of therapy they choose. I would think that is a personal matter between the patient and the doctor. There are plenty of individuals who have benefited from controlling their same sex desires.

This is the third time I've challenged you on this: Why are you jumping to this strange conclusion that I am some how against people seeking to alter their sexual desires, when all I said is gay conversation therapy is anti-LGBT? In case it's not clear to you, and I think I need to make this challenge more explicit: this says nothing about those who are seeking to change their sexuality, it reflects only on those who provide these so called therapy.

Perhaps more to the point,

You haven’t demonstrated any discriminatory business practices. Purity pledges are voluntary and some would see as a beautiful thing.

It's not voluntary though. People in leadership positions are required to take the pledge.

Here you seem to be conceding that discriminatory business practices are by de facto guilty of discrimination? You are just denying that such things have happened. Would you like to ament your rejection of my premise with this caveat?

As for lobbying for discriminatory legislations, I’ll bring you back to my pro life argument. Any pro life group would lobby for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and they would be perfectly in their right to do so. You might call that discrimination against women. Others would call the pro choice position discrimination against the unborn. Lobbying for political change is not wrong/bad or discriminatory just because you phrase it as such.

I've already stated that lobbying for political change is not wrong/bad or discriminatory in itself.

Lobbying for these particular political change is wrong/bad and discriminatory because it seeks to make it easier for businesses to fire / not hire the LGBT community, and that is discriminatory whether I phrase it as such or not. You might not think abortion is a right, but are you trying to tell me that you are okay with firing people based on their sexuality?

To use your pro life argument. Are there any pro life group are lobbying to allow businesses to dig into a person's medical history and fire them if they have had an abortion? If so then you would have a valid comparison.

Funny, that you seriously cannot see the other side. There is no intimidation or harassment involved in quietly standing outside of an abortion clinic praying the Rosary.

Except they are plenty of instances where they are not merely quietly standing outside of an abortion clinic praying the Rosary.

And in fact, they are standing up for those who do not have a voice – the most vulnerable among us – the unborn.

People use to call those who peacefully protested against slavery hateful, but they stood up for those whose rights were being violated.

You say that only because you are under the impression / trying to paint the picture that these so called "quiet protests" are exactly that. The problem is they aren't always quiet.

Sure. Actions that others are in their rights to do and cannot have their private businesses put out of business by merely exercising their first amendment rights of free speech. THAT is the true HARASSMENT and INTIMIDATION in this scenario. All because their protest bothers your sensitivity.

Getting in someone face, usually involving physically blocking someone, as they enter or leave is more than just mere offence to ones sensitivity.

They don’t need an excuse for their behavior. Their behavior is legal and well within their rights and cannot nor should not be taken away from them by threatening to refuse them the right to practice business since they are guilty of ABSOLUTELY NO WRONG DOING.

Legal and within their rights does not meant they are guilty of absolutely no wrong doing, funding anti-LGBT groups is decidedly wrong.

You keep telling yourself that.

I don't need to telling myself anything because I have the evidence to back my claims.